Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1984KAR1064
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is one under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (for short the 'Code') presented by a certain Ramappa against the order dt. 15-12-1983 passed by the J.M.F.C. Kundgol on a private complaint made by him under S. 200 of the Code against respondents 2 to 4, a Sub-Inspector and two Police Constables attached to Kundgol Police Station of Dharwad District for offences punishable under Ss. 451, 323, 325, 352, 341, 342, 379, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in Private Complaint No. 47/1983 directing the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad District, to investigate the complaint under S. 156(3) of the Code and make a report. It may be stated here that the Magistrate did not examine upon oath the complainant and any of the witnesses and record their statement before directing investigation under S. 156(3). 2. The correctness and legality of the order made by the Magistrate was sought to be challenged by Sri K. S. Savanur, learned counsel for the petitioner on three main grounds. They are : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1985)ACC230; AIR1984Kant225
Sabahit, J. 1. This appeal by the employer and the insurer is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 14-4-1980 made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Chikmagalur, in KOC/WEA/4/79-80 on his file directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 21,00or/towards compensation to the claimant under the Workman' s Compensation Act.2. The only point that is raised before us in this appeal is that the claimant had filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, for compensation in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 16 of 1978 and therein the claim was dismissed because the deceased driver himself was responsible for causing the accident. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted before us that the petition made again before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act under the same cause of action is not tenable under S. 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act read with S. 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.3. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act reads:'Notwith...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1772
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. In these batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are licensees for vend of country liquor dispute their liability to pay the rental for the period during which shops were ordered to be closed pursuant to notification issued under Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Incidentally, some of them have challenged the notification issued under Section 21 of the Act. Validity of Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise (lease of right of retail vend of liquors) Rules, 1969 which deprives them from claiming compensation for closure or shifting is called in question; and common prayer is to forbearrespondents from collecting the rentals for the disputed period/s.2. Uncontroverted facts are that petitioners are purchasers of privilege of vend of liquor by offering highest bids, the particulars of which have been set out in the respective Petitions. During the lease period, elections to the State Legislature, bye-election, ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1984)41CTR(Kar)5; [1985]154ITR375(KAR); [1985]154ITR375(Karn)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1.The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in deciding that technical or professional qualification involves a university degree in Engineering Medicine or Law, etc., or membership of recognized profession societies like the Institutes of Chartered Accountants, and the plain experience in any field in itself cannot be treated as a technical or professional qualification within the meaning of the proviso to section 65(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee was getting salary as managing director of M/s. Gopal Films since 1964. His wife, Smt. Indira, became a partner in the said firm in the year 1969. The assessee was paid salary as the managing director of the firm. The ITO included in the assessment of Shri D. Rajagopal, the husband, the salary which he was drawing as mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1984)41CTR(Kar)3; [1985]154ITR432(KAR); [1985]154ITR432(Karn); [1984]17TAXMAN330(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the land at Nos. 102, 103, Commercial Street, Bangalore and Nos. 21-22, Dispensary, Road, Bangalore, together with the newly constructed property were the assets of the firm with the result that its income or loss has to be considered in the hands of the firm (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the properties mentioned above could not be converted into partners' personal property except by means of an instrument in writing in accordance with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act ?' 2. The facts behind these legal formulation are : The assessee is a firm of four partners. The property bearing Municipal Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1984)ACC268
Sabhahit, J.1.This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 21-3-1980, made by the Claims Tribunal, Dharwar in Misc. MVC No. 13 of 1979, on its file, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of Section 61 of the Employees'State Insurance Act.2. One Mr. Veerabhadraiah died as a result of the injuries sustained by him when a bus belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was driven carelessly by the driver thereof, inside the depot of the said Corporation, Hubli, on 15th day of July 1978. The deceased was present there in the course of his employment and the accident happened in the premises of the depot. His legal heirs viz., his widow and children claimed compensation of Rs. l,00,000/- from the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C., respondent No. 2 is the driver and respondent No. 3 is the Self Insurance Fund of the K.S.R.T.C. The respondents resisted the claim on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1984)43CTR(Kar)321; [1985]154ITR318(KAR); [1985]154ITR318(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the declaration made by the assessee is under section 14 and, therefore, does not get the immunity under section 8 from being included in the total income in the assessment is right in law ?' 2. The assessee is a HUF deriving income from several partnership firms. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessment was originally concluded on July 25, 1974, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 14,110. On August 30, 1974, the assessee filed a return of income disclosing a net income of Rs. 12,850. On September 29, 1975, there was a search under s. 132 of the I.T. Act in the business premises of the assessee and books of account and valuables were seized by the income-tax authorities. 3. On October 8, 1975, the President of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1(1985)ACC38
G.N. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment and award dt. 11-12-1979, made by the Claims Tribunal, Kolar, in M.V.C. No. 4 of 1978 on his file, awarding Compensation of Rs. 76,800/- to the claimants and making respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 in the petition, jointly and severally liable to pay the same and limiting the liability of the insurance company at Rs. 50,000/-.2. It is the case of the claimant that he was employed by the third and fifth respondents in the petition and that when he was in the course of the employment travelling in Matador van bearing No. MCD 7 3, on 31-8-1977, the van met with an accident as a result of which the right leg of the claimant was fractured and ultimately he had to wear calipers. He could not work as before. He claimed Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation from the respondents. Respondents resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not result of rash and negligent driving of the tempo van and that the compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1984]56STC14(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 15th February, 1980, made in S.T.A. 606 of 1979. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is carrying on brewery business. For the assessment period from 1st January, 1977, the petitioner filed a return claiming exemption of a sum of Rs. 48,839 under rule 6(4)(f) and (ff) of the Karnataka sales tax Rules, 1957, being the packing and forwarding charges at the rate of Rs. 4 per crate. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the said charges were incurred prior to the sales effected. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City, also did not give any relief to the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, he observed that there was no packing involved at the time of sales of liquor bottles. With regard to the claim for deduction of forwarding charges, this is what the Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1985)43CTR(Kar)175; [1985]154ITR53(KAR); [1985]154ITR53(Karn); [1984]18TAXMAN481(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant could not be treated as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1975 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1975-76, it had income from departmental stores, bakery, restaurant and bar. Its total income for the year was Rs. 3,88,333 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,69,428 was attributable to the bakery and an income of Rs. 72,807 was attributable to the restaurant. If the latter two sums are taken together, it would exceed more than 51 per cent. of the total income of the company. The assessee made that claim so as to be considered as an industrial company for the purpose of getting the benefit of concess...
Tag this Judgment!